Washington hunts a way out of Afghanistan
US and NATO fail to win hearts and minds:
Linda HEARD
Finally, it seems, the penny has dropped. America's 'good war' cannot
be won militarily. Signs indicate that the US President, who was so gung
ho on Afghanistan before taking office, has got the message. More troops
just won't cut it. "We have no illusions," Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton said recently.
|
US President Barack Obama walks through section 60, the burial sites of
the war dead from Iraq and Afghanistan, after participating in
Veterans Day events at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers on
November 11, 2009 at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington,
Virginia. Pictures courtesy GETTY images |
"This is not the prior days when people would come on your show and
talk about how we were going to help the Afghans build a modern
democracy and build a more functioning state and do all of these
wonderful things". The administration's priority is America's security
she said with refreshing frankness, or to be more precise with what she
hopes will pass for refreshing frankness.
But let's be fair! At least, she isn't hypocritically banging on
about the poor Afghan women deprived of wearing nail varnish like Laura
Bush and Cherie Blair did in 2001 or giving the impression that Kabul
will emerge like a phoenix as the region's Helsinki.
The bottom line is this. The US has achieved nothing of substance in
Afghanistan over the past eight years.
If anything, the country is in a worse state that it was when America
and its allies marched in ostensibly on the hunt for the elusive Osama
Bin Laden. With nothing to show for its efforts, Washington has a
problem.
It needs an exit strategy that looks like a win. For two reasons:
first, its reputation as a mighty military power that can't be beaten,
and especially by tribal clansmen.
And second, if it closes shop empty-handed, how does it explain the
rising number of troop deaths and the billions that are still being
poured onto an arid soil in the middle of an economic downturn? As
President Barack Obama once said, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but
it's still a pig". The Taleban control more than 80 percent of the
country. Moreover, Afghanistan's democracy has been shown to be a sham
and its government riddled with corruption; so much so that America's
Ambassador to Kabul Karl Eikenberry has advised the White House not to
send more troops unless the leadership cleanses itself of corruption. No
wonder, Obama is currently engaged in a re-think!
|
US soldiers patrolling a highway in Afghanistan |
Most of his allies have already had theirs. They don't want to know.
They understand that sending their young men to fight a war without end
in the "Graveyard of Empires" is no vote getter. And, in any case, this
isn't their war. Britain is, of course, an exception because preserving
the so-called special trans-Atlantic relationship transcends all other
concerns.
British Premier Gordon Brown has already trodden, oh so lightly, on
Obama's toes by withdrawing British troops from southern Iraq and giving
the green light to Scotland to repatriate the Lockerbie bomber.
The climate got so frosty at one point that the British Foreign
Office practically had to go on its knees to get Brown a one-on-one
meeting with his US counterpart last September when the PM was in the
US. This is why the beleaguered Brown is committed to sending 500 troops
to Afghanistan to bolster the 9,000 already in theater; a move, which
has failed to please anybody as the US wants another 1,500, while 71
percent of Britons want their troops brought home within a year.
|
South Korean protesters shout slogans during a rally opposing
the scheduled visit of U.S. President Barack Obama in Seoul,
South Korea, Saturday, Nov. 14, 2009. About 200 protesters
opposed the dispatch of South Korean troops to Afghanistan. A
placard at right reads: “A war for massacre right after winning
the Nobel Peace Prize?”. |
Obama and Brown aren't exactly spelling it out but it's evident that
they have both reached a similar conclusion. It may be a bitter pill but
as the old saying goes if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. In other words,
the only way this war is going to end is if the Taleban can be brought
into the political fold in return for relinquishing their weapons. They
cannot be eradicated in the way that handfuls of foreign fighters can.
They are Afghans. They are not going anywhere. And, like it or not,
force will not change their ideology.
Battling a belief system is akin to punching in the air. It's
virtually impossible to know who the Taleban are without battalions of
psychic thought police. The Taleban aren't going around with convenient
Taleb slogans on their backs. And that's why so many innocent villagers
are being bombed, which only serves to harden the anti-Western attitudes
of ordinary Afghans. Whichever way it's dressed up, Afghanistan is not a
'good war' if, indeed, such an animal even exists. The US should never
have invaded in the first place. You just need a rudimentary knowledge
of the country's history to realize that. Invaders have come and
invaders have gone.
In any case, as the FBI has confirmed, there is no proof that Bin
Laden was the man behind the attacks on America's soil. Indeed, Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed is about to be tried as the mastermind behind that crime
in New York.
|
US soldiers patrolling a highway |
In the end the US and NATO will walk away empty-handed. They failed
to get Bin Laden and Mullah Omar. They failed to secure the country.
They failed to introduce true democracy. They failed to better the lot
of women and girls.
They failed to destroy the poppy fields. They failed in their
reconstruction efforts. And they failed to win hearts and minds. What a
dreadful waste! A leaked memo indicates the Britain is pushing Afghan
President Hamid Karzai to negotiate with the Taleban, says The Guardian,
while the Foreign Office and MI6 are backing efforts to "remove
reconciled Taleban from the United Nation's sanctions list."
|
A US Marine (C) of 2nd Battalion 2 Marines of 2nd Marine
Expeditionary Brigade patrols in Garmsir district in Helmand
Province in Afghanistan on November 17, 2009. US President
Barack Obama is expected to announce his Afghan strategy review
soon after his return from Asia next week, including whether to
reinforce the 68,000 US troops that will be fighting in
Afghanistan by the end of the year. |
Yet in public Gordon Brown is singing the same old chorus. He still
insists that his country has no intention of "appeasing the Taleban" and
says "Al-Qaeda is the biggest source of threat to our national
security." If that's the case why does he plan to hand parts of Helmand
province to Afghans next year?
In the meantime, Clinton said the US is not interested in staying in
Afghanistan while White House adviser David Axelrod warns that US
deployment there won't be open-handed. It seems that the US and Britain
are reading from slightly different scripts.
An army study says troop morale is declining. US and UK polls show
that public support is waning. In April, Gen. David Petraeus, the
Commander of US Central Command, told the Senate that the Taleban are
strengthening.
This occupation has only one outcome. It will come to an end when
Obama and Brown learn to say "victory" while managing to keep a straight
face.
Arab News |
